RE: A Crack in the "Rock?"
I am going to address some of these misconceptions some of you seem to have concerning food competition between elk and deer and why some elk were moved out of the traditional range.
First of all there were some elk moved into parts of Clinton County back in the late 1990s. I was on the team that moved them and I know why they were moved.
The elk were moved because the traditional elk range was filled with as many elk as the elk themselves would allow. Since there was no elk hunting season at that that time and the elk herd was growing each year, with increased reproduction, that meant that every year more elk had to move out of the traditional range to make room for that year’s recruitment. As the elk moved out of the traditional range they moved into the best farm lands on the outskirts of the traditional range, which was generally the farm lands because elk are grazers. When they moved to the farm lands they were killed for crop damage simply out of necessity of the farms. That was a waste of the resource and we knew we needed to have a hunt to stabilize the ell population, the elk them selves were telling us that.
But, people that were apposed to the concept of a hunt had questions about moving elk out of the over loaded traditional range and into other areas of the state instead of reducing the population in the traditional range by hunting them. The logical question, "are thereother areas of the state that would suport elk" was alwasy asked and needed to be answered.
Before any elk were moved Penn State was charged with developing a model of what types of habitat the elk used in the traditional range. By then using that model they also determined what areas of the state had the same or similar types of habitat. They came back to use with a color coded map of the state with green being the areas that had similar habitat. A couple of areas within Clinton County had the largest areas of this similar green habitat and as luck would have it those areas also consisted of some of the largest blocks of public land left in the state. After over a year of meetings with the various landowner groups, sportsmen groups, governmental agencies, politicians and virtually anyone else with any interest in the subject the decision was made to move elk into three different areas of Clinton County and soft release them over a couple month period of time.
The objective of that was to move elk to the opposite end of the large block of public land between the traditional elk range and what was then considered the expanded elk range so that the elk could then eventually fill in the public land in the middle. That middle area is basically the Quehanna Wild Area. There has since been a multitude of habitat work conducted in that Quehanna area to make it even more attractive the elk herds by creating more areas for grazing animals, like elk and deer.
Moving the elk to those new habitats worked too, though we also very quickly discovered that the elk were generally not socially accepted in areas outside of the traditional elk range if they left the public land. That was made apparent when a couple of individuals killed any elk that came onto their properties and claimed crop damage even while they refused free elk deterrent fencing.
Since those elk transfers the elk range has been expanded in a positive manner for both the elk and the future of hunting. But, the lack of social acceptance also make it more clear to everyone involved that we would also have to have an annual hunting season within the traditional elk range to help control that population even while the elk from the relocated populations were being allowed to expand their populations.
Now for this pure nonsense some people seem to have that the elk are limiting the available food for deer. I say nonsense because that is exactly what it is, the elk are actually a benefit to the deer and I believe our deer populations have greatly benefited from sharing the range with the elk.
First we have to realize that elk are much larger then deer so they can dig down through snow cover that deer could never dig through. I have spent many hours in helicopters and airplanes flying over the elk range during our annual elk surveys. I have seen where both the deer and the turkeys moved into the wintering grounds behind the elk and benefited by feeding in the areas after the elk had dug up the snow cover. I have seen the deer using the trails the elk made to get to the best food. I have also seen where the deer have come into the fields behind the elk to feed. The elk graze on grasses the deer don’t eat but while digging the snow cover off they uncover a lot of clover and other high quality grass that the deer can then benefit from.
There are also thousands of acres of new habitat created in this new elk range, by using funding that was provided by super fund organizations interested in elk, that is being used by a lot more deer then elk. Those habitat expenditures, intended for elk, have greatly increased the potential for increased deer populations throughout the elk range.
Anyone that thinks the elk are hurting the deer population is very much mistaken. All of the real facts have indicated that the elk and the habitat work generated as a result of the elk have been a great benefit to the deer. The two species are not in direct competition, as some sadly under informed people seem to think or at least spend a lot of time spouting off about.
R.S. Bodenhorn